Slashdot Mirror

Karrde712 writes "Fedora Cloud Architect Matthew Miller announced a proposal on a plan to redesign the way that the Fedora Project builds its GNU/Linux distribution. Fedora has often been described as a 'bag of bits,' with thousands of packages and only minimal integration. Miller's proposal for 'Fedora.Next' describes reorganizing the packages and upstream projects that comprise Fedora into a series of 'rings,' each level of which would have its own set of release and packaging requirements. The lowest levels of the distribution may be renamed to 'Fedora Core.' Much discussion is ongoing on the Fedora Devel mailing list. If any Slashdot readers have good advice to add to the discussion, it would be most useful to respond to the ongoing thread there." A full presentation on the plan will be given at the Flock conference next month, and draft slides have been uploaded. A few more details about the discussion are below the fold.

Karrde712 continues, Discussion on the list has questioned whether this is meant to be a return to the old "Fedora Core" and "Fedora Extras" model of Fedora's early life, to which Miller responded: 'I'm aware of this concern — I was there too, you know. As I was talking about the idea with people, it kept being hard to not accidentally say "core". Finally, as I was talking to Seth Vidal, he said, in his characteristic way, "Look, here's the thing. You should just call it Fedora Core. If you don't, people are going to be grumbling in the back corner and saying that it's really Core, and the conversation becomes about a conspiracy about the name. Just call it Fedora Core, and then have the conversation about the important point, which is how it's different."'

Slashback tonight with more from hardware co-op Spindl3top; the name of that protocol which bests telnet in all sorts of ways; censorware discussion for Californians; and even bigger LAN party; and more. Please enjoy :)

A cool black cube. mattdm writes: "For those skeptical about the non-profit nature of Spindl3top (see earlier slashdot story), hopefully this will address some of your concerns. Lucas has posted a public draft of the nonprofit Articles of Organization/Incorporation [pdf format]. This is a really cool project -- it's nice to see it moving forward."

2300-upmanship. DaAdder writes: "There's a multi-million dollar gaming event in Germany. It's huge, it's sponsored, it's probably the biggest LAN anywhere accorind to themselves. They happen to be wrong.

The Gathering in norway was even in guiness book of records in '99, and they've kept growing ever since, peaking at 5300 atendees in '99. Under the about menu on their site you can follow the progress of this LAN, all but this years numbers, that for some reason aren't up yet.
You still have to do some back-breaking exercise, lugging your computer half way across the world to scandinavia if you want to participate, and pay a fee for your efforts, even though most of us think it's a small price to pay for 4+ days of funfillad LAN-o-rama."

The post-leap look, with safety goggles. Bill Sommerfeld of Sun was one of several people to politely point out that there's no evident danger of needing to call "secsh" instead of "ssh," as hinted in the last story down in the previous Slashback.

He writes: "... As several followups stated, this is not a recent change; the drafts and working group have always contained the 'secsh' abbreviation -- because 'ssh' was already taken by a different, now concluded, working group known as Site Security Handbook.

quick score card:
ssh: command name
SSH: protocol name
Secure Shell: full name of working group
secsh: IETF abbreviation for Secure Shell working group
ssh: IETF abbreviation for Site Security Handbook working group.
ietf-ssh: name of the Secure Shell working group mailing list.

Nothing has changed on this since the secure shell working group was founded in 1997 or so."

Never has the phrase "say it ain't so" been so effective. Thank you, Bill.

A preemptive slashback -- please go and report from the future! Katina Bishop invites anyone who can make it to a panel discussion this May 6th (a Sunday) on Internet Blocking in Schools and Libraries. The discussion even has a subtitle -- "Law, Litigation, and Community Response" -- and will kick off at 2:00 PM Pacific Time in the Koret Auditorium of the San Francisco Public Library, at 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco. (That's near Civic Center BART/Muni) You can call 415-557-4400 for directions.

BayFF rocks, and censorware does not. And it sounds a lot more interesting than sitting around waiting for the blackout; go here to pick up argument ammunition next time someone brushes off objections to widescale net-filtering.

Bonus picture for long-time subscribers: Remember the not-quite-politic spray-painted Tux ad campaign which upset some folks in San Francisco? Kurt Gray contributes "some interesting photos of a Cambridge, MA resident testing the PeaceLoveLinux logos spraypainted on the sidewalk ... and it's not washing off! Doh!

Not that programmers or writers are ever a little bit competitive all by themselves, it seems that they have to be motivated with the carrot of fame (or some sort of perverse derivative) and prizes -- check the results of the two contests below and perhaps hone your ideas for next year's versions. Also, the dirt below on how to get Netscape quick (oxymoron?) and a new, old Neal Stephenson book (OK, that one was an oxymoron ...)

Play with directories to find the X-rated version. Remember the Interactive Fiction Contest mentioned here a while ago? Andrew Plotkin writes with some results: "After six weeks of judging, the results of this year's text adventure competition are in. The top three places go to "Kaged", "Metamorphoses", and "Being Andrew Plotkin". But personally I'd be happy to recommend any of the top ten entries.... and not just because my entry (which was not called "Being Andrew Plotkin"!) came in tenth. Heh. Many of the lower-down placers are worth a look, too -- this is one of the best competition rosters we've ever had."

And speaking of contests ... chongo writes: "The International Obfuscated C Code Contest, the oldest Internet based contest, is not ready to go on the cart as some may had feared. With the addition of Simon Cooper as the 4th IOCCC judge and my early vacation return the IOCCC is moving forward again.

We (the judges), have been processing a near record number of entries. We have now entered the final judging out of which the IOCCC winners will be selected. We apologize for the delay and would like to assure all the contestants and the spectators that the IOCCC 2000 winners will be announced prior to the end of the true millennium. :-) Watch the IOCCC news for further development.

P.S. The rumor that some judges are considering opening up the 2001 IOCCC to C++ programs is true."

(Or try the Perry-Casteneda Library at the really big U) Thanks to xFoz you can rest easy in the knowledge that "you won't have to spend big bucks to put that long lost out of print Neal Stephenson book under the tree this year. But you will have to wait for next year for your very own less than $500 a copy of "The Big U." Preorder now and save $2.60! Amazon has the listing here" mattdm points out that "You can pre-order from Barnes and Noble," as well.

Apparently, this is not Stephenson's favorite of his works. In fact, it's also the only one of his books that I didn't read compulsively with little more than breaks for micturation and nutrition, but it's hard to complain about having some more Neal Stephenson to read! (Thanks to my brother for turning me on to The Diamond Age, too.)

Straight up, no chaser LunarOne writes "I accidentally found the real direct link to downloading Netscape 6, without using their annoying little setup app. Thought I would contribute this since I hadn't seen the link anywhere here on /. I found it while downloading the Windows version of Netscape 6. I protect my Windoze box with BlackIce Defender and this firewall-ish program reported back to me the real download site. Anyways, I had low expectations of NS6 due to some negative comments I had heard here earlier. But, I gotta say I really like it. I have been downloading Mozilla builds regularly for a very long while, and still have high hopes for Mozilla. However, right now I'm enjoying Netscape 6, despite the included commercialisms previously condemned in this forum."

mattdm wrote in to tell us that Lego has instituted bulk ordering of parts. The selection is somewhat limited, but they have most of the parts you would want to build your fullsize Lego house. And with five colors to choose from, you should be all set! Now the question is, with this quantity of Legos available, what do people think the coolest thing to build would be?

Matthew Miller recently went through the RH300 training course, as well as the RHCE Certification Exam. He was kind enough to write an overview and give us his opinions on both of them, as well as his opinions on the relevance and quality of the training and the exam. Certification has been discussed extensively with regards to Linux, and here's a big scoop of food for thought.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader Matthew Miller

I'm fortunate enough to work at a place that realizes the importance of keeping employees educated and up-to-date. Since my largest current project is Linux-related, and based on Red Hat's distribution in specific, we thought it'd be worthwhile to send me to Red Hat for their RH300 course. I'm pretty familiar with Linux, but I'm a long way from knowing everything, and it's always interesting to learn what the vendor thinks are the most important parts of their product. We chose RH300 because it's the highest-level systems administration class currently offered. It's also the one linked to the RHCE exam, which was an added bonus, but learning was my main goal, not getting the certification. This is my report on the experience -- hopefully, it will help you decide if this is a good choice for you, either as a sysadmin or as an employer.

The Training Center

This course is not only available directly from Red Hat, but also from various partner organizations, including Global Knowledge, which has a training center here in Boston. However, we decided that if we were going to go to the expense of sending me, I might as well go directly to Red Hat, to increase the chances of getting a good instructor, and to insure adequate access to resources. We've had experiences in the past with third-party instructors who didn't know much beyond what was written in the materials. Of course, I don't know that this would be the case with Global Knowledge's version of RH300 -- perhaps someone else can comment on any experience they've had there.

So, it was off to the Red Hat headquarters in Durham, NC. Incidentally, I stayed in the Residence Inn there -- it was on Red Hat's site as being nearby. They didn't mention that it was on the other side of a major highway, with no provision for pedestrians to get across. Moral: stay at one of the closer hotels, or else get a car. Anyway, the RH building is very nice -- much bigger than I expected. (I suppose the IPO cash is going to good use.) Of course, as students, we weren't shown much of it -- no tour, and we weren't introduced to any of the celebrity employees. (Fair enough -- with several classes coming through every week, they'd never get anything done.) The people I did meet seemed pretty cool, and in general I got the impression that it's a fun place to work.

The classroom was about as I expected -- projection screen up front, rows of decent-enough small-brand Celeron-based systems (one per student). The machines were on a private network -- reasonable for the course, but unfortunately there was no provision for Internet access, which at the least would have been nice to have when I finished labs early.

We did have access to a breakroom with free soft drinks / juice and various snack items. This is also where the lunches were served -- to my surprise, these were quite good, and there were even decent non-meat choices.

The Teacher

The instructor was very knowledgeable -- not necessarily a complete guru, but he knew his stuff, including the "why" behind the course material. He was able to present the material in a good way, and was good at answering questions. I think the decision to go to Red Hat directly was wise; unlike a third-party consultant, he had some idea of what was going on inside of Red Hat and of their potential future plans. For example, during the section on the printing subsystem, he mentioned that they're considering a replacement for LPR in future releases -- perhaps LPRng or even CUPS. It's unlikely that someone from a different company would have had access to that kind of information.

Other Students

The other students in the course had a wide range of skills and backgrounds. I think that everyone probably met the listed better than pico. However, I could tell that some people were struggling. The instructor mentioned that the pass rate for the exam is about 65%, and I wouldn't be surprised if our class came out at that level or worse. It's not that anyone was stupid -- just that some people were out of their depth. On the other end of the spectrum, there were some people who were over-qualified: a few highly experienced sysadmins, and some folks from IBM taking the class because they are soon going to teach it.

The Course

The course was generally similar to the outline found on Red Hat's site, although I think the online information is a bit out of date. (Notice that the Web page makes reference to ipfwadm instead of ipchains or netfilter.) The eight units had slightly different names, and covered slightly different information. In the most drastic example, Unit 8, listed on the Web site as "Systems Administration and Security II", has turned into "Routers, Firewalls, Clusters and Troubleshooting". Some of the information listed in the online Unit 8 was moved into Unit 7, and some of it (cops, for instance) wasn't talked about at all. Hopefully, the online info will be updated soon.

Overall, the class went into less depth than I was hoping. Some of this was due to limitations of the lab setup -- it's a bit difficult to experiment with RAID in any meaningful way when you've only got one IDE hard drive, and obviously impossible to set up a cluster on one machine (short of running VMware). Other things where just plain introductory -- the section on the kernel, for example, focused on the steps required to build and install a new kernel, rather than being an in-depth discussion of tunable parameters. The part about Apache was similar; I was hoping to hear "You've all configured Apache before; here's things you should be aware of when you need it to do such-and-such", but the most advanced we got was setting up a virtual host. Building RPMs from source was mentioned briefly, but there was no information given on important and largely undocumented topics like --buildpolicy.

That's not to say I didn't learn anything -- the section on LVS / Piranha was enlightening even without hands-on experience, and I appreciated the part about quotas, which isn't something I've worked with much. And, I learned a large number of tiny things which add up to making the experience worthwhile to me. RPM can now do globbing over ftp! Portmap uses tcp_wrappers, but doesn't do reverse name lookups, so be sure to use IP addresses instead of names. RH Linux provides a little script called "service" that lets one avoid the tedium of typing /etc/rc.d/init.d/servicename all the time. And so on....

The "300" designation is a bit misleading. This isn't really what I'd consider an upper-level course -- it's more along the lines of SysAdmin 101. Overall, I think this class is probably worthwhile to someone with a good RH Linux background who hasn't done any systems administration. In fact, I'd even recommend it to people in that situation. On the other hand, if you've been a Linux sysadmin for a while, you'll probably be bored most of the time. It might be valuable to experienced Unix sysadmins who haven't dealt with Linux much (or even Linux admins who haven't used Red Hat Linux), but the course wasn't particularly taught from that angle and there are probably better options.

The Exam

Since I signed a confidentiality agreement, I can't talk about specific details of the test, but I will address the exam in general terms. It's a day-long three part process, with each part being worth 1/3 of the total. To pass, your overall score must be at least 80%, and you can't do worse than 50% on any one part.

One of the sections is a typical multiple-choice test, but the other two are lab based. I was quite impressed with the hands-on tests -- they are certainly what makes the RHCE meaningful. I'm not aware of any other sysadmin certifications that work this way.

For one of the lab tests, students are given a several-page specification, and must install and configure Red Hat Linux and several network services. This wasn't particularly difficult, and shouldn't be for anyone with much experience. For me, the hardest part was resisting the temptation to go beyond the spec -- since I finished the given requirements with plenty of spare time, I considered installing and setting up additional services in a way that would fit in with the listed goals. But, I decided that it'd be better to leave well-enough alone -- there's no concept of extra credit.

The other hands-on test is the cool and exciting one. Students are given preconfigured setups which are broken in some way, and given a task that must be completed. The system's problem doesn't necessarily relate directly to the task, but does interfere with it. The test-taker must find out what's wrong and correct the error. (Reinstalling packages is not allowed.) Being able to list the steps taken and to repeat the fix is important, but ultimately the test is scored on a works / doesn't work basis. One the examiner verifies that the problem is fixed, he or she wipes the system and provides another broken config.

This problem-solving section directly tests skills important to being a sysadmin in the real world; if someone has trouble with these, they're probably not ready for a systems administration job. Of course, just passing this test doesn't guarantee good problem solving skills (let alone all the other needed abilities), but it does seem a genuinely valuable indicator.

I've only two complaints with this part of the test. First, I'd make it a much larger section -- at least 50% -- and I'd increase the number of problems given so that there'd be a better sample size. The various challenges are assigned at random, and some are easier than others, and each tests knowledge of different parts of the system. The way it's done isn't bad, but it wouldn't hurt to have a lot more of it. Second, I'd give each student two computers, and make more of the problems network-related. This has logistical and cost issues (especially in places other than Red Hat's own training centers), but since many of the problems faced in the real world have to do with the way systems interact, I feel it'd be worth it.

The Exam Separated From The Course

You may have noticed that I seem a lot more excited by the exam than by the course itself. I think both are valuable, but they seemed aimed at slightly different levels. The course definitely can serve as a good review for the exam, but if you need the course, you won't do well on the test. If you're tight on cash and the certification seems valuable to you or to your employer, going straight to the exam would be reasonable. (Make sure you take a look at Red Hat's test prep page.) On the other hand, if you need to be quickly brought up to speed on the basic knowledge required of a RH Linux sysadmin, it might make sense to take this course without worrying about the test. Since RH300 is equivalent to RH033 + RH133 + RH253, this could be a much more intensive and time-efficient option.

Red Hat-Specificness

It's probably obvious, but bears mentioning anyway: this is a Red Hat Linux course and certification, not a general Linux one. I found this to be true both explicitly and implicitly. The instructor was good about saying "This is the Red Hat way of doing things -- it's possibly different on other distributions." (I found the increase-the-whole-pie attitude to be common to all of the RH employees I talked to.) There were also quite a few things that were just assumed. If you take the exam without knowing a lot about Red Hat Linux in particular, you're likely to have trouble.

This doesn't make the certification meaningless for organizations running other distributions -- many of the skills and knowledge required for the test (especially the problem solving part) are generally applicable anywhere. In fact, due to the lab-based testing process, I have more respect for this exam than I might for a multiple-choice test covering more distributions. I think this issue is a one-way sort of thing: the RHCE exam requires knowledge of Red Hat Linux, but anyone who can pass it shouldn't have much trouble picking up other flavors.

Stuff

Ok, the Web page promises that they'll give Red Hat promotional items to course participants. Yeah, well, they can do better on this front. Not even a t-shirt! C'mon, everyone gives t-shirts. Vendor shirts are a staple of my wardrobe! All we got was a mousepad, some stickers, and a baseball cap. (No chance of getting a red fedora.) Oh, and of course an official copy of the CD (with the 180 days of support). Many people in the class were surprised to learn that Red Hat doesn't sell anything from their offices -- you can't buy copies of the distro or additional merchandise. They've got a lot of students coming through there, so it seems like this could be a decent (even if relatively small) revenue stream.

A Bit About Study Guides

Before I went, I flipped through RHCE Exam Cram , the sole study guide I found at the local bookstore. Someone in the class actually purchased it and brought it with them, and I got a chance to read more of it then. I wasn't really impressed. The book was especially concerned with what it called "trick questions", and indeed its sample questions were sometimes a bit confusing -- and often poorly worded. After taking the test, I can say that this seems mostly to be a problem with the book, not something encountered on the actual exam, which was mostly straightforward and fair.

There are RHCE study guides, but I wouldn't recommend spending any money on any of them. As the course instructor told us: if you're going to pass, you'll do so even if you don't have a guide. And if you're going to fail, the guide won't be much help.

Conclusion

I think the RH300 course and RHCE certification can be valuable to both employers and individuals. The course provides a nice quick overview of the basics needed to move, for example, from being a systems operator to being an admin. I wouldn't think of it as either a requirement for the test or as something that can make someone not ready suddenly have the skills required for the exam. Since the exam is hands-on and lab based, those abilities can only come from real world experience. Looking at that from the other direction: this is exactly what makes the RHCE worth anything. While it's not a total statement on someone's talent, being able to pass is a strong indicator that they have the basic skills for a systems administration job. If I were making hiring decisions, I wouldn't make the RHCE a requirement, but I would have more confidence in applicants who have it.

Matthew Miller recently went through the RH300 training course, as well as the RHCE Certification Exam. He was kind enough to write an overview and give us his opinions on both of them, as well as his opinions on the relevance and quality of the training and the exam. Certification has been discussed extensively with regards to Linux, and here's a big scoop of food for thought.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader Matthew Miller

I'm fortunate enough to work at a place that realizes the importance of keeping employees educated and up-to-date. Since my largest current project is Linux-related, and based on Red Hat's distribution in specific, we thought it'd be worthwhile to send me to Red Hat for their RH300 course. I'm pretty familiar with Linux, but I'm a long way from knowing everything, and it's always interesting to learn what the vendor thinks are the most important parts of their product. We chose RH300 because it's the highest-level systems administration class currently offered. It's also the one linked to the RHCE exam, which was an added bonus, but learning was my main goal, not getting the certification. This is my report on the experience -- hopefully, it will help you decide if this is a good choice for you, either as a sysadmin or as an employer.

The Training Center

This course is not only available directly from Red Hat, but also from various partner organizations, including Global Knowledge, which has a training center here in Boston. However, we decided that if we were going to go to the expense of sending me, I might as well go directly to Red Hat, to increase the chances of getting a good instructor, and to insure adequate access to resources. We've had experiences in the past with third-party instructors who didn't know much beyond what was written in the materials. Of course, I don't know that this would be the case with Global Knowledge's version of RH300 -- perhaps someone else can comment on any experience they've had there.

So, it was off to the Red Hat headquarters in Durham, NC. Incidentally, I stayed in the Residence Inn there -- it was on Red Hat's site as being nearby. They didn't mention that it was on the other side of a major highway, with no provision for pedestrians to get across. Moral: stay at one of the closer hotels, or else get a car. Anyway, the RH building is very nice -- much bigger than I expected. (I suppose the IPO cash is going to good use.) Of course, as students, we weren't shown much of it -- no tour, and we weren't introduced to any of the celebrity employees. (Fair enough -- with several classes coming through every week, they'd never get anything done.) The people I did meet seemed pretty cool, and in general I got the impression that it's a fun place to work.

The classroom was about as I expected -- projection screen up front, rows of decent-enough small-brand Celeron-based systems (one per student). The machines were on a private network -- reasonable for the course, but unfortunately there was no provision for Internet access, which at the least would have been nice to have when I finished labs early.

We did have access to a breakroom with free soft drinks / juice and various snack items. This is also where the lunches were served -- to my surprise, these were quite good, and there were even decent non-meat choices.

The Teacher

The instructor was very knowledgeable -- not necessarily a complete guru, but he knew his stuff, including the "why" behind the course material. He was able to present the material in a good way, and was good at answering questions. I think the decision to go to Red Hat directly was wise; unlike a third-party consultant, he had some idea of what was going on inside of Red Hat and of their potential future plans. For example, during the section on the printing subsystem, he mentioned that they're considering a replacement for LPR in future releases -- perhaps LPRng or even CUPS. It's unlikely that someone from a different company would have had access to that kind of information.

Other Students

The other students in the course had a wide range of skills and backgrounds. I think that everyone probably met the listed better than pico. However, I could tell that some people were struggling. The instructor mentioned that the pass rate for the exam is about 65%, and I wouldn't be surprised if our class came out at that level or worse. It's not that anyone was stupid -- just that some people were out of their depth. On the other end of the spectrum, there were some people who were over-qualified: a few highly experienced sysadmins, and some folks from IBM taking the class because they are soon going to teach it.

The Course

The course was generally similar to the outline found on Red Hat's site, although I think the online information is a bit out of date. (Notice that the Web page makes reference to ipfwadm instead of ipchains or netfilter.) The eight units had slightly different names, and covered slightly different information. In the most drastic example, Unit 8, listed on the Web site as "Systems Administration and Security II", has turned into "Routers, Firewalls, Clusters and Troubleshooting". Some of the information listed in the online Unit 8 was moved into Unit 7, and some of it (cops, for instance) wasn't talked about at all. Hopefully, the online info will be updated soon.

Overall, the class went into less depth than I was hoping. Some of this was due to limitations of the lab setup -- it's a bit difficult to experiment with RAID in any meaningful way when you've only got one IDE hard drive, and obviously impossible to set up a cluster on one machine (short of running VMware). Other things where just plain introductory -- the section on the kernel, for example, focused on the steps required to build and install a new kernel, rather than being an in-depth discussion of tunable parameters. The part about Apache was similar; I was hoping to hear "You've all configured Apache before; here's things you should be aware of when you need it to do such-and-such", but the most advanced we got was setting up a virtual host. Building RPMs from source was mentioned briefly, but there was no information given on important and largely undocumented topics like --buildpolicy.

That's not to say I didn't learn anything -- the section on LVS / Piranha was enlightening even without hands-on experience, and I appreciated the part about quotas, which isn't something I've worked with much. And, I learned a large number of tiny things which add up to making the experience worthwhile to me. RPM can now do globbing over ftp! Portmap uses tcp_wrappers, but doesn't do reverse name lookups, so be sure to use IP addresses instead of names. RH Linux provides a little script called "service" that lets one avoid the tedium of typing /etc/rc.d/init.d/servicename all the time. And so on....

The "300" designation is a bit misleading. This isn't really what I'd consider an upper-level course -- it's more along the lines of SysAdmin 101. Overall, I think this class is probably worthwhile to someone with a good RH Linux background who hasn't done any systems administration. In fact, I'd even recommend it to people in that situation. On the other hand, if you've been a Linux sysadmin for a while, you'll probably be bored most of the time. It might be valuable to experienced Unix sysadmins who haven't dealt with Linux much (or even Linux admins who haven't used Red Hat Linux), but the course wasn't particularly taught from that angle and there are probably better options.

The Exam

Since I signed a confidentiality agreement, I can't talk about specific details of the test, but I will address the exam in general terms. It's a day-long three part process, with each part being worth 1/3 of the total. To pass, your overall score must be at least 80%, and you can't do worse than 50% on any one part.

One of the sections is a typical multiple-choice test, but the other two are lab based. I was quite impressed with the hands-on tests -- they are certainly what makes the RHCE meaningful. I'm not aware of any other sysadmin certifications that work this way.

For one of the lab tests, students are given a several-page specification, and must install and configure Red Hat Linux and several network services. This wasn't particularly difficult, and shouldn't be for anyone with much experience. For me, the hardest part was resisting the temptation to go beyond the spec -- since I finished the given requirements with plenty of spare time, I considered installing and setting up additional services in a way that would fit in with the listed goals. But, I decided that it'd be better to leave well-enough alone -- there's no concept of extra credit.

The other hands-on test is the cool and exciting one. Students are given preconfigured setups which are broken in some way, and given a task that must be completed. The system's problem doesn't necessarily relate directly to the task, but does interfere with it. The test-taker must find out what's wrong and correct the error. (Reinstalling packages is not allowed.) Being able to list the steps taken and to repeat the fix is important, but ultimately the test is scored on a works / doesn't work basis. One the examiner verifies that the problem is fixed, he or she wipes the system and provides another broken config.

This problem-solving section directly tests skills important to being a sysadmin in the real world; if someone has trouble with these, they're probably not ready for a systems administration job. Of course, just passing this test doesn't guarantee good problem solving skills (let alone all the other needed abilities), but it does seem a genuinely valuable indicator.

I've only two complaints with this part of the test. First, I'd make it a much larger section -- at least 50% -- and I'd increase the number of problems given so that there'd be a better sample size. The various challenges are assigned at random, and some are easier than others, and each tests knowledge of different parts of the system. The way it's done isn't bad, but it wouldn't hurt to have a lot more of it. Second, I'd give each student two computers, and make more of the problems network-related. This has logistical and cost issues (especially in places other than Red Hat's own training centers), but since many of the problems faced in the real world have to do with the way systems interact, I feel it'd be worth it.

The Exam Separated From The Course

You may have noticed that I seem a lot more excited by the exam than by the course itself. I think both are valuable, but they seemed aimed at slightly different levels. The course definitely can serve as a good review for the exam, but if you need the course, you won't do well on the test. If you're tight on cash and the certification seems valuable to you or to your employer, going straight to the exam would be reasonable. (Make sure you take a look at Red Hat's test prep page.) On the other hand, if you need to be quickly brought up to speed on the basic knowledge required of a RH Linux sysadmin, it might make sense to take this course without worrying about the test. Since RH300 is equivalent to RH033 + RH133 + RH253, this could be a much more intensive and time-efficient option.

Red Hat-Specificness

It's probably obvious, but bears mentioning anyway: this is a Red Hat Linux course and certification, not a general Linux one. I found this to be true both explicitly and implicitly. The instructor was good about saying "This is the Red Hat way of doing things -- it's possibly different on other distributions." (I found the increase-the-whole-pie attitude to be common to all of the RH employees I talked to.) There were also quite a few things that were just assumed. If you take the exam without knowing a lot about Red Hat Linux in particular, you're likely to have trouble.

This doesn't make the certification meaningless for organizations running other distributions -- many of the skills and knowledge required for the test (especially the problem solving part) are generally applicable anywhere. In fact, due to the lab-based testing process, I have more respect for this exam than I might for a multiple-choice test covering more distributions. I think this issue is a one-way sort of thing: the RHCE exam requires knowledge of Red Hat Linux, but anyone who can pass it shouldn't have much trouble picking up other flavors.

Stuff

Ok, the Web page promises that they'll give Red Hat promotional items to course participants. Yeah, well, they can do better on this front. Not even a t-shirt! C'mon, everyone gives t-shirts. Vendor shirts are a staple of my wardrobe! All we got was a mousepad, some stickers, and a baseball cap. (No chance of getting a red fedora.) Oh, and of course an official copy of the CD (with the 180 days of support). Many people in the class were surprised to learn that Red Hat doesn't sell anything from their offices -- you can't buy copies of the distro or additional merchandise. They've got a lot of students coming through there, so it seems like this could be a decent (even if relatively small) revenue stream.

A Bit About Study Guides

Before I went, I flipped through RHCE Exam Cram , the sole study guide I found at the local bookstore. Someone in the class actually purchased it and brought it with them, and I got a chance to read more of it then. I wasn't really impressed. The book was especially concerned with what it called "trick questions", and indeed its sample questions were sometimes a bit confusing -- and often poorly worded. After taking the test, I can say that this seems mostly to be a problem with the book, not something encountered on the actual exam, which was mostly straightforward and fair.

There are RHCE study guides, but I wouldn't recommend spending any money on any of them. As the course instructor told us: if you're going to pass, you'll do so even if you don't have a guide. And if you're going to fail, the guide won't be much help.

Conclusion

I think the RH300 course and RHCE certification can be valuable to both employers and individuals. The course provides a nice quick overview of the basics needed to move, for example, from being a systems operator to being an admin. I wouldn't think of it as either a requirement for the test or as something that can make someone not ready suddenly have the skills required for the exam. Since the exam is hands-on and lab based, those abilities can only come from real world experience. Looking at that from the other direction: this is exactly what makes the RHCE worth anything. While it's not a total statement on someone's talent, being able to pass is a strong indicator that they have the basic skills for a systems administration job. If I were making hiring decisions, I wouldn't make the RHCE a requirement, but I would have more confidence in applicants who have it.

We break the week barrier, and tons of people email to gloat that they've seen screenings. The rest of us will have to settle for massive media hype including mantid's note from harper's that proclaims that Reagan's Star Wars project costed $4.166 billion, but Star Wars merchandise costed $4.5 billion. mattdm noted that Moviefone blew up under the ticket demand yesterday. ZD-Net has a report. DH1 sent us a really top notch interview at Salon with Empire Director Irvin Kershner- kinda nice to read something cool about the original movies after all this gas over the new one. Lastly Jethro73 sent us a George Lucas's take on piracy of Star Wars. Basically, he will be very angry and fight very hard (big surprise) against pirates. Update: 05/14 01:59 by CT : My ticket plans haven't happened, so if anyone has bright ideas on getting tickets for the Slashdot crew while we're at LinuxExpo, lemme know...

mattdm writes "Wired News has a new article on Lego Mindstorms -- specifically on what hackers are doing to improve the thing. Check it out -- geek toys are good!" Mommy? For Christmas, I want Lego Mindstorm with a Linux interface. My favorite comment in the article is that half of the sets were sold for adults.

Well folks, its friday, and I'm ready for the weekend. And I'm gonna celebrate by cleaning out the submissions box. What follows is a fairly sizable list of quickies that have been built up over the last week or so. First off, Felix Finch sent us a link to IllusionWorks.com. It is exactly what you would expect. Kinda cool. Frank Berger sent us a link to a Chicken Conversion for Quake II. What a strange world we live. Oliver Fischer, the guy who was working on those Linux Keyboard Keys has updated his page with more information for anyone interested. Mike Roessing wrote a sort of zd parody. It's friday, you might enjoy reading such thing. Christopher Lee sent us a link to a NY Times Writeup on VA Research and Linux. Fict wrote in to tell us that the latest issue of Phrack is now online. Matthew Miller wrote in to say that Red Hat is selling, well, Red Hats like the one in their logo. Fict wrote in to send us a link to Denounce.com (uber cool fake news site) one MS buying Linux.

Matthew Miller has written in to express his concerns over GnuHoo- the web link tracking project that we posted last week. The issue is use of the term 'GNU' in their name- when in fact their project is all proprietary software. Hit the link below to read what Matthew has to say about it. When I saw the site, I assumed the source would be made available: In fact, I wanted to install a copy over here to track the links from old articles. Read the following very carefully. Update GnuHoo has now been redirected to NewHoo. I'm glad to see the Right Thing done. Best of luck to everyone involved with NewHoo. The following is written by Slashdot Reader Matthew Miller

This is a warning to all supporters of the open source movement -- stay away from the so-called "GnuHoo" web directory discussed on Slashdot a week or so ago!

From the name, and from a quick look, it appears that this is an attempt to create a Yahoo-style web directory only with the content and perhaps the backend software under a GPL-like license. People easily make the assumption that it's even backed by the FSF.

Unfortunately, it's not true. The directory is "free" in the same sense that Yahoo is free -- you don't have to pay to look at it. And yeah, anyone can sign up to contribute work. But, the copyright is owned by the Gnuhoo staff, and there's no open-source-style licensing provisions. In truth, it's not really even "free beer" free, let alone "free speech" free.

When all the confusion is stripped away, what we've got here is a version of The Mining Co. that, instead of paying its editors a tiny portion, attempts to cash in on free labor generated by the current open-source enthusiasm.

When confronted, the GnuHoo staff expressed surprise that anyone would be upset about this -- they argue that "GnuHoo is and will always be a free service", but that they want to be able to make money off of it. Now, I'm not opposed to anyone making money from open-source projects, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here -- this is a proprietary project masquerading as something it's not.

Furthermore, after a quick e-mail to the FSF, I learned that GnuHoo has been asked to stop using the name, or start working with free software. The GnuHoo staff has shown no willingness to do so, saying that the name is very important to the project, and that it was chosen because it conveys the sense of "a free, community effort". That may be, but it certainly conveys a lot of other things -- all of them misleading!

I've got no problems with a non-open project of this type -- it's a good idea. But it's wrong for them to pretend it's something it's not, and to use the GNU name to deceive people.

If people (and I'm sure some would) want to donate their time and effort to a for-profit company, that's fine. But it'd be far better for people to turn their efforts to making a real GNU-style web directory. It's sad to see the amount of enthusiasm wasted here -- people have already contributed hours to something that isn't what they thought (or maybe still think) it is.

I've pointed all this out (in a much less angry-rant-format way than this, I promise) on the GnuHoo mailing list, and so have several others. Without going into much detail (except to say that there was a lot of detail from us and little from the GnuHoo staff) the response was "We don't agree with you. sorry."

So, finally, after a short message requesting that a clear decision be made to change either the name or the license, one of the GnuHoo staff sent me a message saying: "Sigh. Will you please go away?" Well, I suppose I will. And I urge everyone else to come with me.

Matthew Miller has written in to express his concerns over GnuHoo- the web link tracking project that we posted last week. The issue is use of the term 'GNU' in their name- when in fact their project is all proprietary software. Hit the link below to read what Matthew has to say about it. When I saw the site, I assumed the source would be made available: In fact, I wanted to install a copy over here to track the links from old articles. Read the following very carefully. Update GnuHoo has now been redirected to NewHoo. I'm glad to see the Right Thing done. Best of luck to everyone involved with NewHoo. The following is written by Slashdot Reader Matthew Miller

This is a warning to all supporters of the open source movement -- stay away from the so-called "GnuHoo" web directory discussed on Slashdot a week or so ago!

From the name, and from a quick look, it appears that this is an attempt to create a Yahoo-style web directory only with the content and perhaps the backend software under a GPL-like license. People easily make the assumption that it's even backed by the FSF.

Unfortunately, it's not true. The directory is "free" in the same sense that Yahoo is free -- you don't have to pay to look at it. And yeah, anyone can sign up to contribute work. But, the copyright is owned by the Gnuhoo staff, and there's no open-source-style licensing provisions. In truth, it's not really even "free beer" free, let alone "free speech" free.

When all the confusion is stripped away, what we've got here is a version of The Mining Co. that, instead of paying its editors a tiny portion, attempts to cash in on free labor generated by the current open-source enthusiasm.

When confronted, the GnuHoo staff expressed surprise that anyone would be upset about this -- they argue that "GnuHoo is and will always be a free service", but that they want to be able to make money off of it. Now, I'm not opposed to anyone making money from open-source projects, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here -- this is a proprietary project masquerading as something it's not.

Furthermore, after a quick e-mail to the FSF, I learned that GnuHoo has been asked to stop using the name, or start working with free software. The GnuHoo staff has shown no willingness to do so, saying that the name is very important to the project, and that it was chosen because it conveys the sense of "a free, community effort". That may be, but it certainly conveys a lot of other things -- all of them misleading!

I've got no problems with a non-open project of this type -- it's a good idea. But it's wrong for them to pretend it's something it's not, and to use the GNU name to deceive people.

If people (and I'm sure some would) want to donate their time and effort to a for-profit company, that's fine. But it'd be far better for people to turn their efforts to making a real GNU-style web directory. It's sad to see the amount of enthusiasm wasted here -- people have already contributed hours to something that isn't what they thought (or maybe still think) it is.

I've pointed all this out (in a much less angry-rant-format way than this, I promise) on the GnuHoo mailing list, and so have several others. Without going into much detail (except to say that there was a lot of detail from us and little from the GnuHoo staff) the response was "We don't agree with you. sorry."

So, finally, after a short message requesting that a clear decision be made to change either the name or the license, one of the GnuHoo staff sent me a message saying: "Sigh. Will you please go away?" Well, I suppose I will. And I urge everyone else to come with me.

Is it just me, or has today been looong as heck? Allright, first off, the Slashdot Q&A thing is still coming, and we have a (ahem) Victim to start routing questions. Contact Clifton Wood with your questions. Linux, or other. Easy or Hard, Bring it on. We'll post it, and let the Slashdot Readers try to answer it! Next, Sam Smith sent me A Psion 5 Review thingee. It's funny and interesting if you need a distraction. Lastly, Matthew Miller Sent us a link to some interesting info about MacOS 10.

Matthew Miller writes "ZDNet's 'InfoBeads' has an article about server hardware and software used at ISPs. They show Linux at 26.1%, and have a few interesting-to-hear-from-the-mainstream comments. " I wouldn't have guessed that high- I just assumed my immediatecircle of ISP Linux running friends were a more thinly scattered bunch.

Matthew Miller sent us this link where you can read about one of the cooler things to happen to Lego's recently. Not only are they robotic, computer controlled, toys, but next year they will be based on Star Wars. I can't believe that I still have another year to wait until the first prequel.

Matthew Miller has the following to say "Byte magazine has a nice article on the non-death of Unix in the January '98 issue Reseller section. Take a look. The article says really nice things about Linux, too: ("Linux is what's bringing new hope to the Unix community.")."